Here is a simple fix i just thought of. polaris could ship the unit without tires and rims, it would be a dealer added option this would benifit the buyer becuse they could chose there wheel and tire setup. No tires and rims = less weight Lots less.

 

Dazed, or they could ship them without air in the tires, that would cut their weight down also.

 

What about in the future.Who knows they may build 800 twin that can not hold together well at 650lbs.I do not think lighter is better on utility quads maybe sport quads guy care about weight more.Even if they had the technology to make a 600cc utility quad that weights only 400lbs it would be a useless work machine.

 

Yes, it would be nice if Polaris reduced the weight of these machines a bit. But how much are you guys willing to pay for an ATV? We’re at $7000 right now, do you think Polaris is going to just donate these high-strength low-weight modifications for our benefit?

This weight restriction is arbitrary. I can’t tell you whose hat they pulled that number out of but it surely isn’t based on future technological and safety improvements. Just for example, I think we’d all have to agree that metal bumpers add some degree of extra protection for the rider and machine. But even though they may result in a safer machine, judged purely on the fact that they add weight they can be considered undesirable under this current restriction.

Do any of you actually think that the motivation for this law came from our desire to have lighter machines? What we ride is a result of free enterprise, the decision of the manufacturer to respond to consumer demand and the consumer’s response in spending. If you want a light-weight machine, by all means buy one. But the last thing we want is legislative intervention between the us and the manufacturer. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

We’re dealing with two different issues here. They should be identified and addressed as such. If you want to help remove the weight restriction visit my thread “Wisconsin ATV Weight Restriction” on this forum. Check it out, get involved.

 

From reading your post at the WATVA web site it seems that the weights as listed by Randy Harden came about in the original description of an ATV in order to differentiate ATV's from Jeeps and Dune Buggies etc. in the original legislative draft.

Then Mr. Harden goes on to mention 600# and 650# and the other weights. Doesn't he realize that this is where the problem is, was and will be?

I realize that "descriptions" are a problem and the situation only gets worse the more closely ATV's are described. I think the weight restriction/description should be completely eliminated. But then... How does one differentiate between an ATV and Jeep/truck with no body? Does anybody have any suggestions?

 

Thor, I don’t have a current “official” draft of the Wisconsin legal definition of an ATV but your comments have peaked my curiosity about what it actually says. I may try to get a copy.

From my past experience in failed attempts to register our Max as an ATV for legal trail use, I can definitely say that the description includes the requirement that an ATV has a saddle, or seat that’s straddled, unlike a “bench” seat. It may also require that it is steered via handlebars, I don’t know but I wouldn’t doubt it. Both of these requirements along with the width restriction others have mentioned involving the DS650 would adequately differentiate our machines from anything like a jeep.

Your right on with your suggestion that eliminating the weight restriction all together would be a “forward thinking” move. I suggested as much to Mr. Harden, and have no doubt that would be his preference too, if it were up to him.

 

So a Polaris Ranger and Sportsman 6x6 would be registered diffently even though they share the same motor and drivetrain?Sorry I just can,t figure out the differances.

 

You’re part right. Under the current definition of what can be registered as an ATV neither machines is eligible, only for different reasons. These machines can’t be registered as ANYTHING in WI, and without registration they can’t legally be ridden on public trails.

The only thing keeping the Sportsman 6x6 from being registerable is its weight. Other than that I don’t think the fact that it has two extra wheels is an issue (not absolutely sure about that). The Ranger has more strikes against it. Its width, weight, steering wheel and bench seats disqualify it from registration.

The problem isn’t that there is a legal description for these machines. If this state feels it’s necessary to differentiate between a jeep, boat, ATV, etc. I can see some of the reasoning behind that. The problem is that the description is too narrow and the snail’s pace at which the definition is “updated” isn’t keeping up with technological improvements and the bigger machines the manufacturers are producing in response to consumer demand.

 

I do not understand the reasoning behind the law. We on th west coast have ti fight for a place to ride. Is the state under the impression that a heavier machine is harder on the trail then one that is lighter? This makes no sence to me. It is like the state charging more for a pickup registration then a passenger car. Is one more hard on the road then the other? I don't think so. Good luck in your fight.

'01 sp Ho stock for now

 

I do not understand the reasoning behind the law. We on th west coast have ti fight for a place to ride. Is the state under the impression that a heavier machine is harder on the trail then one that is lighter? This makes no sence to me. It is like the state charging more for a pickup registration then a passenger car. Is one more hard on the road then the other? I don't think so. Good luck in your fight.

'01 sp Ho stock for now